Maximizing Small-Stakes Hold'em Winnings - Part II

This is the second in a series of columns discussing hands presented in the new book Small Stakes Hold'em, published by Two Plus Two Publishing and authored by Ed Miller, David Sklansky, and Mason Malmuth. The book is aimed at experienced low-limit players who are trying to make a substantial income from these games. In my columns, a number of hands are selected from the book, and the format is to present the problem and the answer stated in the book, and then my thoughts. I recommend that you first try to answer the problem yourself before reading the book answer or my thoughts. Remember that all the problems are based on a loose low-limit game.

Hand No. 1: You have the 9 2 in the big blind. Two players limp in, the small blind completes, and you check (four small bets). The flop is 9 8 3, giving you top pair. The small blind bets. What should you do?

Book Answer: Fold. Getting 5-to-1 pot odds looks favorable. These odds suggest that you need to win only 17 percent of the time to call profitably. But your true odds are much worse than 5-to-1. If you have the best hand, you are unlikely to get a lot of action from weaker hands. You may get one loose player to pay you off with a smaller pair, but otherwise you cannot expect to make much on the turn and the river. On the other hand, plenty of cards could give your opponents a bigger pair, a straight, or a flush. If an opponent does draw out on you, you may not know it and end up paying him off. Finally, you could already be behind to someone with an overpair or a 9 with a better kicker. If so, you may again be paying off on the turn and the river. There is a much greater chance that you will be the one paying off the big bets on the later streets than the one getting paid off. You could call profitably if it would leave you all in, but since you cannot, we say you are getting reverse implied odds. And in this case, those reverse implied odds are not high enough to allow you to play the hand. With a weak, made hand, especially when the pot is small, reverse implied odds sometimes force you to fold when the pot odds support continuing. You will be paying off a better hand for big bets far more often than someone will pay you off. When the pot is small, if there is a big chance that you are either already beaten or will be outdrawn, fold marginal made hands.

My Thoughts: Virtually every good player I have talked to agrees with the book's logic. But, I think a very strong case can be made for raising. First of all, no one raised preflop, so no one figures to have an overpair. Second, many low-limit players will bet any piece of the flop in this situation (unraised pot, small field, non-threatening board). When this happens, the range of hands for the small blind is enormous. The small blind could have bottom pair, middle pair, a pocket pair, a flush draw, or a straight draw. Your top pair beats all of these hands. Third, a raise will force the other two limpers to call two bets cold, making an overcard call very unlikely. Even so, those with overcards are making a mistake by calling when you consider the pot odds. Fourth, you are risking two bets with five bets already in the pot. You don't have to be right every time to make the risk worthwhile. Fifth, raising now does not commit you to staying all the way to the river. If you get heat, you can always fold if you don't improve. Finally, these are inexperienced low-limit players, so you don't have to worry about being outplayed on later streets. You can play quite accurately on the later streets because of the caliber of opponent you are facing. While pot size is an important consideration, so is the likelihood of your having the best hand. Unless I knew that the small blind would bet with only top pair or better in this situation, I think raising has a lot of merit.

Hand No. 2: You have the K K in middle position. Two players limp in and the player to your right raises. You reraise. The button calls, the blinds fold, and the limpers call. Now, the player to your right makes it four bets, which is a cap. Everyone calls. There are 21.5 bets in the pot. The flop is 10 9 5. It is checked to the preflop capper, who bets. What should you do?

Book Answer: Call with the intention of raising a turn bet. In the actual hand, the player raised, and everyone called. The turn was the 2. Everyone checked, he bet, and everyone called. The river was the 8. His opponents checked. Despite the scary river card, he bet because his opponents are likely to call with almost anything in this huge pot. The button raised, everyone else folded, and he called. The button had the J 7 for a rivered gutshot straight.

He went wrong when he raised on the flop. The flop raise resulted in there being 24.5 bets in the pot. It was two bets to call, so his opponents were getting more than 12-to-1 to call. Offering 12-to-1 does not protect a hand against weak draws. The best chance to protect the hand is on the turn. If he raises the turn bet, he forces the field to call two big bets cold on fourth street, and he cuts down the odds enough to make calling with weak draws, like gutshots, wrong. Assume that he just calls on the flop. Everyone else calls, so the pot has 13 big bets. On the turn, everyone checks to the flop bettor, who bets again. Now, the player raises. With 16 big bets in the pot, the players behind him must call two bets to continue. The button is getting only 8-to-1 to call. His opponents would be correct to call with only five outs (but not four, as in this case). Not only does waiting for the turn to raise protect against people who should call one bet but not two, it may induce others to fold with hands actually strong enough to call the raise. By raising the flop, you induce the flop bettor to check to you on the turn. When the pot is already big, protecting your hand on the turn is more important than raising for value on the flop. If the pot is extremely large, forego a flop raise if doing so increases the chance that you will be bet into on the turn.

My Thoughts: This is interesting advice, but there are some problems. The turn may not get bet, for a variety of reasons. Just because someone bets the flop doesn't mean that person will bet the turn, especially when a large number of players are still hanging around. For example, if he is one of those low-limit players who will bet overcards into a large field (in this case, a big suited connector like A-K suited or maybe A-Q suited), as described in other examples in the book, it is highly unlikely that he will bet the turn unless he improves. In other cases, a scare card may show up, like a diamond (making a flush possible) or a 10 (pairing the top flop card), thereby discouraging him from betting the turn.

Many low-limit players will not cap the betting unless they have a very strong hand like aces or kings. If he is one of those players, he is six times more likely to have aces as kings, given your hand. When this happens, raising the turn, where prices double, is going to cost you a lot more money.

You probably have the best hand, so the flop raise is profitable. The authors have not shown that the increased likelihood of winning the pot compensates for not raising on the flop. Where is the dividing line here?

Editor's note: Jim Brier has co-authored a new book with Bob Ciaffone entitled Middle Limit Holdem Poker. It is available through Card Player.